Doolittle’s Natural Law vs The Conservative Authoritarian Critique by Imperium Press
By NLI Sr Fellow Martin Stepan (
)
Martin is writing a book on the limits of liberalism (or something of that nature). I think he’s eviscerating liberalism in the same fashion I did libertarianism. We shall see. 😉
Objection:
–“The worry that Curt may retain an Anglo tendency to treat frameworks as ends rather than instruments is valid here.”–
–“The worry that Curt may retain an Anglo tendency to treat frameworks as ends rather than instruments is valid here.”–
Response:
“I think the confusion is that I created the science of decidability and formal logic of natural law, but then I apply it to the american constitution, which is itself an extension of anglo civilization’s invention of the modern rule of law state. It’s an understandable confusion, since most people presume I’m writing philosophy or ideology – and I’m not. I’m writing a system of measurement for use as a science of decidability and applying it to the anglo model of the modern rule of law state, because that’s my present concern. The anglo model is the most western of the models used in western civilization – meaning it imposes the maximum of individual responsibility in exchange for the maximum individual agency, and does so in secular form, because the founding peoples of the united states constituted four different fundamentalist groups and as such only secular rule-of-law framing was possible for unifying the different groups in a federation.”
The article is not attacking ‘nature” or constraint realism.
It is attacking a specific historical and philosophical object:
Natural Law as a universal juridical—moral principle used to dissolve folk law, hierarchy, sovereignty, and particularism.
Its core claims are:
1. ‘Natural law” historically arises late, during civilizational decadence, not vitality
2. It originates as a law of nations / international law, not internal folk law
3. It functions to:
-
universalize law
-
flatten status distinctions
-
subordinate command to philosophy
-
replace imperative authority with abstract justification
4. It inevitably produces.
-
equality doctrines
-
anti-hierarchy
-
erosion of sovereignty
-
eventual abolition of law itself
5. True law, historically, is imperative command, not metaphysical derivation
This is a genealogical critique:
Natural Law is portrayed as a Trojan horse for liberalism, even before liberalism exists.
-
Superficially: yes
-
Substantively: only partially
-
Dangerously: at the rhetorical boundary
Let’s break it down.
lmperium Press is correct on this point:
Historically, Natural Law has ovenwhelmingly been used to:
-
override customary law
-
dissolve hierarchy
-
universalize obligation
-
justify rebellion, rights, and internationalism
That is not disputable .
Implication:
Curt is deliberately reclaiming a term that has an extremely poisoned genealogy.
This creates:
-
constant confusion
-
vulnerability to misinterpretation
-
and the exact concern you’re raising
If you name your framework after a historically anti—folk, anti—sovereign doctrine, people are justified in suspecting universalism.
lmperium Press’ strongest claim is this:
When law isjustified by metaphysical necessity rather than command, authority dissolves.
This is a real risk.
If Natural Law is framed as:
-
‘what must be true”
-
‘what reason dictates”
-
‘what reality demands“
then it can be misused to:
-
delegitimize sovereign command
-
moralize rebellion
-
override particular norms
This is precisely what Grotius, Locke, and liberalism did .
Your worry that Curt may retain an Anglo tendency to treat frameworks as ends rather than instruments is valid here.
CD Note: “I don’t confuse it. I think readers confuse it. And I think that is because no one has produced a science of decidability before and as such the reader is pattern-matching not understanding what I’ve done. I’m not sure how to be more explicit other than to add a paragraph to everything I post…”
lmperium Press attacks Natural Law as:
-
a universal law binding all peoples equally
-
a higher law overriding sovereigns
-
a moral constraint on command
Curt’s Natural Law explicitly rejects all three.
In Curt’s framework
-
Natural Law is descriptive, not prescriptive
-
It binds no one morally
-
It does not invalidate sovereignty
-
It does not authorize rebellion
-
It does not assert equality
-
It does not generate rights
It says only:
“If you violate these constraints, you will pay these costs.”
That is categorically different.
-
lmperium Press’ target is normative universal law.
-
Curt’s Natural Law is forensic constraint accounting.
Those are not the same object.
In Curt’s framework
-
The sovereign commands
-
Law is whatever the sovereign enforces
-
Natural Law does not legitimize or delegitimize the command
-
It merely predicts outcomes
This is closer to ultra-realism than liberalism.
-
Natural Law does not replace command.
-
It audits command.
That distinction matters.
The real risk is not in the theory, but in how it can be reinterpreted.
If Curt’s Natural Law is treated as:
-
“the correct way societies should be structured”
-
“a superior law all peoples must follow”
-
“a framework for peaceful coexistence”
-
“a replacement for sovereignty”
then lmperium Press‘ critique fully applies.
And your suspicion would be correct:
it would become a post—liberal imperial framework.
The slogan “Let a thousand nations bloom” is the flashpoint.
Imperium Press would hear that slogan and immediately think:
-
universal law
-
equal standing
-
coexistence mandate
-
suppression of conflict
-
anti—hierarchy
And historically, they’d be justified.
However, Curt’s intended meaning is closer to:
Let many sovereign experiments proceed without lies about constraints, with selection deciding outcomes.
That is not equality.
That is not harmony.
That is not international law.
That is not harmony.
That is not international law.
It is:
-
pluralism under reality
-
selection without moral cover
-
survival without justification
The problem is that the slogan does not encode this harshness cleariy.
The lmperium Press critique:
-
Correct about historical Natural Law
-
Correct about liberal genealogy
-
Correct about universalism and equality
-
Correct about law dissolving when subordinated to philosophy
But:
-
It does NOT directly refute Curt’s Natural Law as defined
-
It conflates descriptive constraint with normative law
-
It assumes Natural Law necessarily delegitimizes command
Your concern is well-founded in this sense:
If Curt does not continually and explicitly assert that Natural Law is NOT a higher law, NOT a moral doctrine, and NOT a peace project. it will be reabsorbed into the very liberal-imperial tradition Imperium Press critiques.
Natural Law must be framed as:
-
a weapon, not a covenant
-
an accounting system, not a morality
-
a diagnostic, not a mandate
-
subordinate to sovereignty, not above it
Otherwise, history will repeat itself.
lmperium Press is attacking Natural Law as Iawgiver.
Curt is offering Natural Law as autopsy report.
Those are not the same — but the distinction is fragile, rhetorical, and easy to lose.
Your instinct to press on this point is not nitpicking.
It is exactly where frameworks historically fail.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-24 01:19:46 UTC
Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/2014870710746022216
Leave a Reply